On 4/13/2016 6:10 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 4/11/2016 9:41 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 10 GRAND a year, just for insurance? 10 thousand dollars? For just ONE
>>>>>> year?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Insurance can run anywhere from about $3500 to $12,000 depending on
>>>>> coverage, copays, deductibles. There are some people that get full
>>>>> coverage for free, subsidized by those that pay the higher rates.
>>>>
>>>> What's the point of living in a rich western country if they don't
>>>> even try to organise affordable healthcare for everybody? Unless
>>>> you're rich, you could just as well live in Bangladesh.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are some disparities,but many people don't pay the premium, or at
>>> least all of it. Traditionally, at least the past 50+ years, employers
>>> pay all or most of it. Other countries tax people. If you have nothing,
>>> you can get free coverage. There are a lot of people stuck in the middle
>>> though, earn too much to qualify for free care, not enough to afford paid
>>> care.
>>>
>>> No matter where you live it is not "free".
>>
>> We pay 'National Insurance' when we are working. Anyone not working gets it
>> all 'free'!
>
> Rubbish. 80 % of NHS expenditure, is derived from UK general taxation,
>
> VAT contributes the same amount to general taxation, as NCI does.
>
> There's nobody in the UK, working or not, who doesn't make a hefty
> contribution to general taxation through VAT (up to 20 percent on goods
> and services).
> Or through road and fuel taxes (which we all pay indirectly in the price
> of anything that's transported).
>
> Janet UK
>


For your TRAVESTY of a health care system.

You fools!

Now wonder the Icelanders fleeced your pension funds!

On 4/13/2016 7:03 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> People working in food service, hotels, retail, have some of the worst
> situations. They are making low wages and are offered little from the
> employers.

It's called a move-up job - so mote it be.

On 4/13/2016 7:07 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:47:30 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:14:26 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 03:25:42 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 5:55:27 PM UTC-4, sf wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:58:10 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jeßus" wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd still like to see a real black person win office. Methinks that is
>>>>>>>> still a long, long way off yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find that comment interesting. I vote for the most qualified, not
>>>>>>> because the candidate is black, white, male or female.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not a fashion show.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully most Americans have that frame of mind. Who cares what an
>>>>>> outsider thinks?
>>>>>
>>>>> Suppose it were not our old friend Jeßus talking, but (for example)
>>>>> Malala Yousafzai. Would you perhaps care about her opinion?
>>>>>
>>>> Why would I? We sink or swim on our own.
>>>
>>> Perhaps my example was ill-chosen. Would you dismiss the opinion
>>> of an intelligent person simply because they are not a U.S. citizen?
>>>
>> I think we have enough intelligent citizens here who share their
>> thoughts. If we think we need outside advice, we'll ask for it.
>
> No wonder Donald Trump "loves uneducated people".

Whereas Hillary just shears them like sheeple.

No "love" involved, just a basic ****ing.


> It would appear, that Americans who support Donald Trump and believe
> he has the statuis, gravitas and judgement to be POTUS, are entirely
> unaware of his proven track record outside the USA.
>
> Janet UK

It would appear you Brit whiners are worried.

GOOD!

Now **** OFF AND MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, BITCH!

On 4/13/2016 7:17 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> They are looking for the better life that the Danes and Swedes have been
> working for all these years.

No they're not.

They're embedded ISIS fighters looking to re-establish Islime as
dominant world cult.

You're a ****ing insipid FOOL!

On 4/13/2016 7:32 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> The numbers are out there. Our government pays less per person

GODDAMNED LIAR!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/nadeem-...b_3733080.html


Many Canadians and commentators in other countries lauding Canada's
government-dominated approach to health care refer to Canadian health
care as "free." If health care actually were free, the relatively poor
performance of the health care system might not seem all that bad. But
the reality is that the Canadian health care system is not free -- in
fact, Canadian families pay heavily for healthcare through the tax
system. That high price paints the long wait times and lack of medical
technologies in Canada in a very different light.

In 2013, a typical Canadian family of four can expect to pay $11,320 for
public health care insurance. For the average family of two parents with
one child that bill will be $10,989, and for the average family of two
adults (without children) the bill comes to $11,381. As a result of
lower average incomes and differences in taxation, the bills are smaller
for the average unattached individual ($3,780), for the average
one-parent-one-child family ($3,905), and the average one-parent
two-child family ($3,387). But no matter the family type, the bill is
not small, much less free.

And the bill is getting bigger over time. Before inflation, the cost of
public health care insurance went up by 53.3 per cent over the last
decade. That's more than 1.5 times faster than the cost of shelter (34.2
per cent) and clothing (32.4 per cent), and more than twice as fast as
the cost of food (23.4 per cent). It's also nearly 1.5 times faster than
the growth in average income over the decade (36.3 per cent).

And what did these substantial funds buy?

Despite talk of wait times reduction initiatives (backed with
substantial funding), Canadians face longer wait times than their
counterparts in other developed nations for emergency care, primary
care, specialist consultations, and elective surgery. Access to
physicians and medical technologies in Canada lags behind many other
developed nations. And things have improved little since 2003. For
example, the total wait time in 2012 (17.7 weeks from GP to treatment)
is every bit as long it was back then.

Don't be fooled by claims that health spending isn't high enough or that
transfers for health care to the provinces have been insufficient.
Canada's health care system is the developed world's most expensive
universal-access health care program after adjusting for the age of the
population (older people require more care).

Canadians aren't suffering from health care underfunding; they're
suffering from health care underperformance.

On 4/13/2016 7:54 AM, Ophelia wrote:

>> People working in food service, hotels, retail, have some of the worst
>> situations. They are making low wages and are offered little from the
>> employers.
>
> How do they get health cover when they are paid so poorly?
>
>
>
The same way the rest of our ILLEGALS do - they go to the emergency room
and then stiff them for the bill!

My god!

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:54:34 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:

> Yes, it sounds very frightening. What happens if someone is seriously ill,
> has no insurance and no money? Surely they are not just left to die???

People who present with acute symptoms (say, diabetic shock) at an
emergency room are treated for the immediate problem and sent on their
way. Having no regular health care, they eventually wind up back
in the ER with diabetic shock. Eventually it kills them. The cost
of treating non-paying patients is baked in to the rates that hospitals
charge paying patients, so we're paying for it anyway. I can't help
but think it might be more economical to fund some sort of health
insurance for the working poor.

> > If you work for most any government agency, a position in the healthcare
> > industry, an upper middle class job, chances are you have good coverage at
> > little or no cost.
> >
> > People working in food service, hotels, retail, have some of the worst
> > situations. They are making low wages and are offered little from the
> > employers.
>
> How do they get health cover when they are paid so poorly?

Many of them do not. It is cheaper for them to pay the penalties
under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act than it is to
purchase insurance, even with subsidies. Our own Gary is in that
situation.

My friend whose wife is a doctor was ranting this morning. Dr. Wife
pointed out that health policy is made by people who consume relatively
little health care, who seem not to realize that we all need health
care at some point.

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:54:34 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
>
>> Yes, it sounds very frightening. What happens if someone is seriously ill,
>> has no insurance and no money? Surely they are not just left to die???
>
> People who present with acute symptoms (say, diabetic shock) at an
> emergency room are treated for the immediate problem and sent on their
> way. Having no regular health care, they eventually wind up back
> in the ER with diabetic shock. Eventually it kills them. The cost
> of treating non-paying patients is baked in to the rates that hospitals
> charge paying patients, so we're paying for it anyway. I can't help
> but think it might be more economical to fund some sort of health
> insurance for the working poor.
>
>>> If you work for most any government agency, a position in the healthcare
>>> industry, an upper middle class job, chances are you have good coverage at
>>> little or no cost.
>>>
>>> People working in food service, hotels, retail, have some of the worst
>>> situations. They are making low wages and are offered little from the
>>> employers.
>>
>> How do they get health cover when they are paid so poorly?
>
> Many of them do not. It is cheaper for them to pay the penalties
> under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act than it is to
> purchase insurance, even with subsidies. Our own Gary is in that
> situation.
>
> My friend whose wife is a doctor was ranting this morning. Dr. Wife
> pointed out that health policy is made by people who consume relatively
> little health care, who seem not to realize that we all need health
> care at some point.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>

If I were as healthy for my age as Gary is, I would also opt to pay cash
for my care and then take the tax penalty. As it is, with my chronic
health issues I have little choice but to buy the very best policy that is
offered to me through the exchange as it is cheaper overall with premiums
and deductibles than paying cash out of pocket. I know without a doubt
that each year I will hit my maximum out of pocket level, usually within
the first 3-4 months of the year. The only benefit I have gained from the
affordable care act is I am no longer excluded from buying coverage due to
pre-existing conditions that previously kept me "uninsurable" in the
private insurance marketplace. BTW, my premium through the exchange went
up 24% this year from last. There is nothing affordable about the
affordable care act.

--
jinx the minx

On 4/13/2016 10:48 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> I can't help
> but think it might be more economical to fund some sort of health
> insurance for the working poor.


Whose "working poor"?

Ours?

Or central America's?

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:06:07 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:


>Here's another anecdote: my husband would like a shoulder replacement.
>He had surgery last summer that was unable to repair his infraspinatus
>tendon, and now he's left with a lot of pain, weakness in the joint,
>and lack of mobility.

The woman who lives opposite me had hers done about six years ago. Lot
of inconvenience after its done for awhile, but well worth it.

On 4/13/2016 11:30 AM, wrote:
> The woman who lives opposite me had hers done about six years ago.

But what would DAVID say?

You vicious shrew!

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:06:07 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

> Here's another anecdote: my husband would like a shoulder replacement.
> He had surgery last summer that was unable to repair his infraspinatus
> tendon, and now he's left with a lot of pain, weakness in the joint,
> and lack of mobility. The insurance company said it won't pay for the
> replacement until he's 65 (we're guessing it's so he won't outlive the
> parts that they put in). I don't see as it's any different to have a
> faceless bureaucrat in an insurance company or a faceless bureaucrat
> in the government make that decision for him.

I think it's because medicare will pay for most or all of the cost.

--

sf

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:06:03 -0600, carnal asada >
wrote:

> On 4/12/2016 11:49 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:40:38 -0600, carnal asada >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/12/2016 1:13 PM, sf wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:42:18 -0600, carnal asada >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 4/11/2016 10:41 PM, sf wrote:
> >>>>> To prove my point, all you need to do is Google which states TAKE the
> >>>>> most Federal "handout" dollars vs how much they contribute in taxes
> >>>>> and how many of them are red (Republican dominated) states.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Because of course Dems _never_ cease to hand out other peoples' money to
> >>>> one and all - they're equal opportunity redistributors, always.
> >>>
> >>> Red states never fail to have their hands out to take a Federal
> >>> handout. Typical hypocrites.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> And they only have red people in them?
> >>
> >> Those are the only people getting federal aid?
> >>
> >> Do tell...
> >>
> >> Btw, is their political polarity at present the defining trait of those
> >> states?
> >>
> >> Or are there perhaps other demographic traits that are a bit more relevant?
> >>
> >
> > As far as money going to the state far outstripping what the state
> > contributes in taxes. Yes, absolutely.
> >
>
> No, that's RIPE BULLSHIT!
>
> You have made blanket statement with ZERO demographic references or
> proofs, and you have done so repeatedly despite being told you are
> uneducated on the matter.
>
> Now then:
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...e_welfare.html
>

Why don't you stop posting conservative bullshit and post some real
stastics for a change.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...takers/361668/


--

sf

On 4/13/2016 12:23 PM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:06:03 -0600, carnal asada >
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/2016 11:49 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:40:38 -0600, carnal asada >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/12/2016 1:13 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:42:18 -0600, carnal asada >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/11/2016 10:41 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>>>> To prove my point, all you need to do is Google which states TAKE the
>>>>>>> most Federal "handout" dollars vs how much they contribute in taxes
>>>>>>> and how many of them are red (Republican dominated) states.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because of course Dems _never_ cease to hand out other peoples' money to
>>>>>> one and all - they're equal opportunity redistributors, always.
>>>>>
>>>>> Red states never fail to have their hands out to take a Federal
>>>>> handout. Typical hypocrites.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And they only have red people in them?
>>>>
>>>> Those are the only people getting federal aid?
>>>>
>>>> Do tell...
>>>>
>>>> Btw, is their political polarity at present the defining trait of those
>>>> states?
>>>>
>>>> Or are there perhaps other demographic traits that are a bit more relevant?
>>>>
>>>
>>> As far as money going to the state far outstripping what the state
>>> contributes in taxes. Yes, absolutely.
>>>
>>
>> No, that's RIPE BULLSHIT!
>>
>> You have made blanket statement with ZERO demographic references or
>> proofs, and you have done so repeatedly despite being told you are
>> uneducated on the matter.
>>
>> Now then:
>>
>> http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...e_welfare.html
>>
>
> Why don't you stop posting conservative bullshit and post some real
> stastics for a change.
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...takers/361668/

Why don't you EVER post anything other than far left biased links?

There are specific demographic reasons why given states produce and
consumer varying levels of federal funding.

But before we get to those...

Do you ever excoriate Taxachusettes for their absurd porkopolis known as
the "big dig"?

http://archive.boston.com/news/local...ing/?page=full

As deadlines passed and costs skyrocketed from $1 billion to more than
$14 billion, the Central Artery/Tunnel project championed by the late
Democratic speaker, Thomas P. ``Tip" O'Neill Jr., came to represent the
worst excesses of pork-barrel politics. Many members of Congress cheered
when the federal government finally moved to stop cutting checks in 2000.

How about Washington state's Jurassic pork?

TAKING A RIDE ON THE SEATTLE MONEY TRAIN
Washington Light Rail Project a Heavy Burden for Taxpayers
Seattle’s $1.9 billion light rail project, one of the most expensive in
the United States, appears to
be anything but a first class trip for taxpayers.
42,43
The Sound Transit University Link light rail
extension is a 3.15 mile tunnel that will connect
downtown Seattle to the University of
Washington’s campus. Construction on the
segment began in 2009 and is expected to open
sometime in 2016, although the Central Puget
Sound Regional Transit Authority (CPSRTA),
which is responsible for the project, has been
notorious for missing deadlines.44,45
Federal funds were earmarked for the extension in 2008 and over $300
million in earmarked
dollars were steered to it through 2010. 46,47,48 After the earmark ban
took effect, the project
received another $400 million through federal grants, committee
influence, and omnibus
bills.
49, 50,51,52,53
With respect to making federal funding for this project a priority, it
doesn’t hurt that its chief
proponents include a senior member of the Appropriations Committee and
longtime Chairman of
the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee.

While light rail is sold as being lighter and more efficient, some
transportation experts believe
that light rail is more wasteful and inefficient.
54 Unfortunately, the incentive to build light rail
infrastructure comes from the Federal Transit Authority’s (FTA) New
Starts program, which
promises to pay up to 50 percent of the cost of building new transit
lines.55 Hence, cities that
spend more, get more. However, cities – at times with the help of
willing congressional
proponents – can tend to bite off more than they can chew when they know
that the federal
government will pay for a good portion of the project. Taxpayers can be
taken for a ride twice.
They pay once for the initial deluge of federal funds and again for the
maintenance and upkeep
of light rail systems after the original federal funding is long gone.
With the national debt topping $18 trillion, spending under a scenario
like this is anything but
light and represents a heavy burden on taxpayers.

....or closer to your own BLUE state home:

FERRY FUNDING FLOWS LIKE WATER IN BAY AREA
San Francisco Ferry System Costing Taxpayers Millions
San Francisco’s Water Emergency
Transportation Authority (WETA) is
responsible for operating and expanding ferry
services in and around the San Francisco
Bay.56 As the manager of the ferry system,
WETA has the authority to expand service
areas and designate new terminals around the
bay. With subsidies provided by local taxes
and federal funding, WETA is able to operate
throughout the bay as the premier ferry service
with routes as far north as Vallejo and as far
south as Harbor Bay.57 Since 2008, WETA’s
efforts to expand the ferry service from
Albany and Berkeley to San Francisco have
benefitted from the attention of the local
congressional delegation.
In 2007, San Francisco politicians successfully procured an earmark
worth $750,000 for ferry
boats and terminals for the Berkeley/Albany Ferry Service, and an
additional $475,000 earmark
in 2009 for vessel and terminal construction.58,59 In 2010, a
particularly well-connected member
of Congress from the City by the Bay jumped on board and helped earmark
$1 million for the Berkley/Albany to San Francisco Ferry Service.60
These pre-ban earmarks are emblematic of the
thirst for federal funding that survives beyond the earmark ban.
In addition, it appears that, as of February 2015, over $2 million in
federal taxpayer funds that
were directed to ferry-related expenditures have yet to be allocated and
remain a drain on the
U.S. Treasury.61 What’s more, the flow of federal funding has yet to stop.
In 2014, WETA received a $3 million grant from the U.S. Department of
Transportation to
support more construction on terminals and maintenance facilities for
ferries in the bay.62 WETA
Board Member Jeff DelBono even mentioned the importance of the Bay Area
congressional
delegation in securing this grant.63
Despite record deficits, the federal government continues to spend money
on old earmarks,
leaving taxpayers working desperately to try and stay afloat. The Bay
Area’s affinity for
parochial spending is enough to give taxpayers the feeling that the
entire federal budget is
fiscally adrift.


Now THAT is some big time blue state WELFARE from the Feds!!!!!



Do you even acknowledge any differences in population, income,
infrastructure, or any other key factors that create innate disparities
between the lamestream media-labeled "red" and "blue" states?

Or do you just sit here and spew back Dem whipping post polemics with
not the slightest thought cycles of your own?

Let's review some KEY facts which you just snipped and dismissed:

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...e_welfare.html

1. the "red state welfare" argument appears to be entirely based only on
how each state voted in the most recent presidential election.

2. State finances take decades to develop as either "haves" or
"have-nots," so looking at only a single election is meaningless.


http://www.youngcons.com/liberals-lo...thats-baloney/

1. Actual welfare and poverty programs only amount to about 10% of the
expenditures at the federal level. Now if a state received only funds
for poverty programs, then you could claim that it is a welfare state.
But unfortunately for their argument, this is not this case.

2. Also, most states don’t tax military paychecks, which would somewhat
offset the federal expenditure, so overall there is going to be a net
draw of funds. But more to the point, national defense is a common good
that benefits the whole country, so it can hardly be classified as
mooching.

3. And then there are other problems with Krugman’s claim. Does he
really consider Social Security and Medicare recipients, who paid
payroll taxes into the system their whole lives only to get a payout
during retirement, a moocher? I don’t think that is what constitutes a
moocher in anyone’s definition, except maybe a very special liberal like
Krugman. But wait, then there’s another problem; how do you control for
a state that is a retirement haven like Florida or Arizona? A good
portion of these people worked in other states only to migrate to the
retirement haven during their golden years. So this would show up on the
books as a contribution in one state and later a draw in another. These
are not the welfare queens that are what people have in mind when they
are talking about government dependency. But they want to argue that the
red-states/Republicans are moochers, so they’ve got to fit the right set
of facts to fit their narrative somehow.

4.But you will notice that in a majority of the cases, black recipients,
a factor 93% correlated with Democrats, outnumber whites (a category
that includes Hispanics) by a factor of two to one on average (even
though whites outnumber blacks by a factor of 5 in the general
population). In fact, running a regression on the percentage of blacks
on food stamps against the percent of the population on food stamps
(0.868, t-stat: 21.6) and the log of the county size (1.6, t-stat: 7.7)
we find that a 1% increase in the size of a county results in 1.59%
increase of the percentage of blacks on food stamps and for each 1%
increase in the number of people on food stamps, the percentage of
blacks on food stamps increases 0.86%, showing that on average, most of
the food stamp growth dependency comes from blacks, and therefore
Democrats.


Now please rotate on those FACTS!

"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:54:34 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
>
>> Yes, it sounds very frightening. What happens if someone is seriously
>> ill,
>> has no insurance and no money? Surely they are not just left to die???
>
> People who present with acute symptoms (say, diabetic shock) at an
> emergency room are treated for the immediate problem and sent on their
> way. Having no regular health care, they eventually wind up back
> in the ER with diabetic shock. Eventually it kills them.

OMG


The cost
> of treating non-paying patients is baked in to the rates that hospitals
> charge paying patients, so we're paying for it anyway. I can't help
> but think it might be more economical to fund some sort of health
> insurance for the working poor.

Yes! Is that not being discussed?



>
>> > If you work for most any government agency, a position in the
>> > healthcare
>> > industry, an upper middle class job, chances are you have good coverage
>> > at
>> > little or no cost.
>> >
>> > People working in food service, hotels, retail, have some of the worst
>> > situations. They are making low wages and are offered little from the
>> > employers.
>>
>> How do they get health cover when they are paid so poorly?
>
> Many of them do not. It is cheaper for them to pay the penalties
> under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act than it is to
> purchase insurance, even with subsidies. Our own Gary is in that
> situation.
>
> My friend whose wife is a doctor was ranting this morning. Dr. Wife
> pointed out that health policy is made by people who consume relatively
> little health care, who seem not to realize that we all need health
> care at some point.

Oh

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 4/13/2016 12:52 PM, Bruce wrote:
> If I find a disgruntled
> American, does that mean the US sucks?
>
> -- Bruce

It's not the slightest surprise you'd try and do just that, you mincing
nancy boy Auztard - **** off and DIE!

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 3:08:13 PM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:54:34 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, it sounds very frightening. What happens if someone is seriously
> >> ill,
> >> has no insurance and no money? Surely they are not just left to die???
> >
> > People who present with acute symptoms (say, diabetic shock) at an
> > emergency room are treated for the immediate problem and sent on their
> > way. Having no regular health care, they eventually wind up back
> > in the ER with diabetic shock. Eventually it kills them.
>
> OMG
>
>
> The cost
> > of treating non-paying patients is baked in to the rates that hospitals
> > charge paying patients, so we're paying for it anyway. I can't help
> > but think it might be more economical to fund some sort of health
> > insurance for the working poor.
>
> Yes! Is that not being discussed?

Not by the people who hold the purse strings. They're mainly trying
to repeal what little improvement was made with the APCA.

Cindy Hamilton

"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 3:08:13 PM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
>> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:54:34 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes, it sounds very frightening. What happens if someone is seriously
>> >> ill,
>> >> has no insurance and no money? Surely they are not just left to
>> >> die???
>> >
>> > People who present with acute symptoms (say, diabetic shock) at an
>> > emergency room are treated for the immediate problem and sent on their
>> > way. Having no regular health care, they eventually wind up back
>> > in the ER with diabetic shock. Eventually it kills them.
>>
>> OMG
>>
>>
>> The cost
>> > of treating non-paying patients is baked in to the rates that hospitals
>> > charge paying patients, so we're paying for it anyway. I can't help
>> > but think it might be more economical to fund some sort of health
>> > insurance for the working poor.
>>
>> Yes! Is that not being discussed?
>
> Not by the people who hold the purse strings. They're mainly trying
> to repeal what little improvement was made with the APCA.

Oh
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...

>> My friend whose wife is a doctor was ranting this morning. Dr. Wife
>> pointed out that health policy is made by people who consume relatively
>> little health care, who seem not to realize that we all need health
>> care at some point.
>
> Oh

Mostly by people who have generous benefits where they work, many in the
public sector.

Cheri

On 4/13/2016 1:57 PM, Bruce wrote:
> Every democracy gets the politicians they vote for.

Liar.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:07:29 +0100, Janet > wrote:

> No wonder Donald Trump "loves uneducated people".
>
> It would appear, that Americans who support Donald Trump and believe
>he has the statuis, gravitas and judgement to be POTUS, are entirely
>unaware of his proven track record outside the USA.

Apparently so. I appreciate that he appears to be an 'outsider' and
not part of the mainstream - which is the basis for his appeal - I get
that part. But the man is a lunatic with many failed dealings, wants
to put walls up (like that's ever worked out to be a good idea,
anywhere) and in terms of foreign relations... what a freaking
disaster. Surely there is somebody else better qualified to take on
the establishment than that clown.

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> My friend whose wife is a doctor was ranting this morning. Dr. Wife
>>> pointed out that health policy is made by people who consume relatively
>>> little health care, who seem not to realize that we all need health
>>> care at some point.
>>
>> Oh
>
> Mostly by people who have generous benefits where they work, many in the
> public sector.

I see ...


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 4/13/2016 2:04 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> They're mainly trying
> to repeal what little improvement was made with the APCA.
>
> Cindy Hamilton


Putting over 9 million Americans OFF their prior insurance was an
"improvement" dear?

Spiking premiums year over year by 20-40% was an "improvement"?

Looting Medicare to pay for unfunded mandates was an "improvement"?

My God!

Get your head straight - NOW!

On 4/13/2016 2:18 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>

>>> Yes! Is that not being discussed?
>>
>> Not by the people who hold the purse strings. They're mainly trying
>> to repeal what little improvement was made with the APCA.
>
> Oh

She's LYING!

On 4/13/2016 2:28 PM, Je�us wrote:
> I appreciate that he appears to be an 'outsider' a

**** off Auztard, no one here gives a flying **** what YOU "appreciate".

You verminous rabbit-killing sot!

In article >,
says...
>
> "Janet" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On 4/11/2016 9:41 PM, Bruce wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> 10 GRAND a year, just for insurance? 10 thousand dollars? For just
> >> >>>> ONE
> >> >>>> year?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Insurance can run anywhere from about $3500 to $12,000 depending on
> >> >>> coverage, copays, deductibles. There are some people that get full
> >> >>> coverage for free, subsidized by those that pay the higher rates.
> >> >>
> >> >> What's the point of living in a rich western country if they don't
> >> >> even try to organise affordable healthcare for everybody? Unless
> >> >> you're rich, you could just as well live in Bangladesh.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > There are some disparities,but many people don't pay the premium, or at
> >> > least all of it. Traditionally, at least the past 50+ years, employers
> >> > pay all or most of it. Other countries tax people. If you have
> >> > nothing,
> >> > you can get free coverage. There are a lot of people stuck in the
> >> > middle
> >> > though, earn too much to qualify for free care, not enough to afford
> >> > paid
> >> > care.
> >> >
> >> > No matter where you live it is not "free".
> >>
> >> We pay 'National Insurance' when we are working. Anyone not working gets
> >> it
> >> all 'free'!
> >
> > Rubbish. 80 % of NHS expenditure, is derived from UK general taxation,
> >
> > VAT contributes the same amount to general taxation, as NCI does.
> >
> > There's nobody in the UK, working or not, who doesn't make a hefty
> > contribution to general taxation through VAT (up to 20 percent on goods
> > and services).
> > Or through road and fuel taxes (which we all pay indirectly in the price
> > of anything that's transported).
>
> Had you ever worked, you would have seen, on your pay, a deduction for
> National Insurance.

Indeed, and thanks to my NIC payment record I draw a state retirement
pension, no doubt you do the same. NIC (National Insurance
Contributions) pay for State pension, and towards the entire benefit
system. (like the Winter Fuel Payment you and I currently get, and the
Child Benefit we both received. NIC pays for all that; it's far from the
sole, or main, support of the NHS.

Janet UK

On 4/13/2016 2:52 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:29:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/2016 8:42 AM, Janet wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael also said that doctors and nurses are indifferent and don't care
>>>>> about patients like they do in other countries. They can't be fired.
>>>
>>>
>>> ?? A simple google search shows examples of doctors and nurses in
>>> Denmark being fired for misdemeanours at work.
>>>
>>> Janet UK
>>>
>>
>> Misdemeanor is a crime. Bitchiness is not.
>
> You base a lot on one disgruntled Dane. If I find a disgruntled
> American, does that mean the US sucks?
>

It was not meant as 100% are like that. Us people with common sense
know that there are always exceptions to people's personalities and
behavior.

On 4/13/2016 2:48 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>>>> ?? A simple google search shows examples of doctors and nurses in
>>>> Denmark being fired for misdemeanours at work.
>>>>
>>>> Janet UK
>>>>
>>>
>>> Misdemeanor is a crime. Bitchiness is not.
>>
>> You base a lot on one disgruntled Dane. If I find a disgruntled
>> American, does that mean the US sucks?
>>
>
> It was not meant as 100% are like that. Us people with common sense
> know that there are always exceptions to people's personalities and
> behavior.

Dude...

The mincing, auztarded, nancy-boy is _trolling_ you!

On 4/13/2016 3:02 PM, Bruce wrote:
> Use that common sense


**** off out of here FOREVER - Nancy-boy!

On 4/13/2016 5:02 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:48:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/2016 2:52 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:29:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/13/2016 8:42 AM, Janet wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael also said that doctors and nurses are indifferent and don't care
>>>>>>> about patients like they do in other countries. They can't be fired.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ?? A simple google search shows examples of doctors and nurses in
>>>>> Denmark being fired for misdemeanours at work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Janet UK
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Misdemeanor is a crime. Bitchiness is not.
>>>
>>> You base a lot on one disgruntled Dane. If I find a disgruntled
>>> American, does that mean the US sucks?
>>>
>>
>> It was not meant as 100% are like that. Us people with common sense
>> know that there are always exceptions to people's personalities and
>> behavior.
>
> Use that common sense then and stop harping on about that one Dane
> that you talked to.
>

Yeah, but he is a Great Dane

On 4/13/2016 4:09 PM, Bruce wrote:
> Us people with common sense

No, that let's you out, you miserable mincing nancy boy.

In article >, lid
says...
>
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:07:29 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>
> > No wonder Donald Trump "loves uneducated people".
> >
> > It would appear, that Americans who support Donald Trump and believe
> >he has the statuis, gravitas and judgement to be POTUS, are entirely
> >unaware of his proven track record outside the USA.
>
> Apparently so. I appreciate that he appears to be an 'outsider' and
> not part of the mainstream - which is the basis for his appeal - I get
> that part. But the man is a lunatic with many failed dealings, wants
> to put walls up (like that's ever worked out to be a good idea,
> anywhere) and in terms of foreign relations... what a freaking
> disaster. Surely there is somebody else better qualified to take on
> the establishment than that clown.

VOTE SHELDON, folks

Janet

On 4/13/2016 4:36 PM, Janet wrote:
>> Apparently so. I appreciate that he appears to be an 'outsider' and
>> >not part of the mainstream - which is the basis for his appeal - I get
>> >that part. But the man is a lunatic with many failed dealings, wants
>> >to put walls up (like that's ever worked out to be a good idea,
>> >anywhere) and in terms of foreign relations... what a freaking
>> >disaster. Surely there is somebody else better qualified to take on
>> >the establishment than that clown.
> VOTE SHELDON, folks
>
> Janet


Or enjoy a LOT more of this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/uss-dona...ets-in-baltic/

> Look at this. I may be a hardass prick sometimes, but this had me teared up.
>
> https://www.facebook.com/VivaBernie2...75106762808814
>
> --Bryan
>
Oh how loverly, crocodile tears from a true American traitor!

On 4/13/2016 5:54 PM, MisterDiddyWahDiddy wrote:
> you should vote for
> Bernie.

You should be ground up into cat food and shipped to China, you
scumsucking TRAITOR!

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 23:36:12 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >, lid
>says...
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:07:29 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>
>> > No wonder Donald Trump "loves uneducated people".
>> >
>> > It would appear, that Americans who support Donald Trump and believe
>> >he has the statuis, gravitas and judgement to be POTUS, are entirely
>> >unaware of his proven track record outside the USA.
>>
>> Apparently so. I appreciate that he appears to be an 'outsider' and
>> not part of the mainstream - which is the basis for his appeal - I get
>> that part. But the man is a lunatic with many failed dealings, wants
>> to put walls up (like that's ever worked out to be a good idea,
>> anywhere) and in terms of foreign relations... what a freaking
>> disaster. Surely there is somebody else better qualified to take on
>> the establishment than that clown.
>
>VOTE SHELDON, folks

Imagine that, LOL. 'Tax breaks for all large breasted topless chicks'
would be his first act as Prez.

On 4/13/2016 5:57 PM, Je�us wrote:
> Imagine that, LOL.

Imagine you inside a Great White's belly - YUM-O!

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:05:55 -0500, jinx the minx
> wrote:

>Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:54:34 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, it sounds very frightening. What happens if someone is seriously ill,
>>> has no insurance and no money? Surely they are not just left to die???
>>
>> People who present with acute symptoms (say, diabetic shock) at an
>> emergency room are treated for the immediate problem and sent on their
>> way. Having no regular health care, they eventually wind up back
>> in the ER with diabetic shock. Eventually it kills them. The cost
>> of treating non-paying patients is baked in to the rates that hospitals
>> charge paying patients, so we're paying for it anyway. I can't help
>> but think it might be more economical to fund some sort of health
>> insurance for the working poor.
>>
>>>> If you work for most any government agency, a position in the healthcare
>>>> industry, an upper middle class job, chances are you have good coverage at
>>>> little or no cost.
>>>>
>>>> People working in food service, hotels, retail, have some of the worst
>>>> situations. They are making low wages and are offered little from the
>>>> employers.
>>>
>>> How do they get health cover when they are paid so poorly?
>>
>> Many of them do not. It is cheaper for them to pay the penalties
>> under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act than it is to
>> purchase insurance, even with subsidies. Our own Gary is in that
>> situation.
>>
>> My friend whose wife is a doctor was ranting this morning. Dr. Wife
>> pointed out that health policy is made by people who consume relatively
>> little health care, who seem not to realize that we all need health
>> care at some point.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>
>If I were as healthy for my age as Gary is, I would also opt to pay cash
>for my care and then take the tax penalty. As it is, with my chronic
>health issues I have little choice but to buy the very best policy that is
>offered to me through the exchange as it is cheaper overall with premiums
>and deductibles than paying cash out of pocket. I know without a doubt
>that each year I will hit my maximum out of pocket level, usually within
>the first 3-4 months of the year. The only benefit I have gained from the
>affordable care act is I am no longer excluded from buying coverage due to
>pre-existing conditions that previously kept me "uninsurable" in the
>private insurance marketplace. BTW, my premium through the exchange went
>up 24% this year from last. There is nothing affordable about the
>affordable care act.

when you become eligible for Medicare you will find that insurance
companies can and will deny you coverage because of pre-existing
conditions. You undergo an interview about who your doctors are, what
prescriptions you take and very specific questions about illnesses and
dates. It becomes difficult to shop the market for better insurance
rates because of this. I understand the reasoning, I just don't like
it.
Janet US

Janet B > wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:05:55 -0500, jinx the minx
> > wrote:
>
>> Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:54:34 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, it sounds very frightening. What happens if someone is seriously ill,
>>>> has no insurance and no money? Surely they are not just left to die???
>>>
>>> People who present with acute symptoms (say, diabetic shock) at an
>>> emergency room are treated for the immediate problem and sent on their
>>> way. Having no regular health care, they eventually wind up back
>>> in the ER with diabetic shock. Eventually it kills them. The cost
>>> of treating non-paying patients is baked in to the rates that hospitals
>>> charge paying patients, so we're paying for it anyway. I can't help
>>> but think it might be more economical to fund some sort of health
>>> insurance for the working poor.
>>>
>>>>> If you work for most any government agency, a position in the healthcare
>>>>> industry, an upper middle class job, chances are you have good coverage at
>>>>> little or no cost.
>>>>>
>>>>> People working in food service, hotels, retail, have some of the worst
>>>>> situations. They are making low wages and are offered little from the
>>>>> employers.
>>>>
>>>> How do they get health cover when they are paid so poorly?
>>>
>>> Many of them do not. It is cheaper for them to pay the penalties
>>> under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act than it is to
>>> purchase insurance, even with subsidies. Our own Gary is in that
>>> situation.
>>>
>>> My friend whose wife is a doctor was ranting this morning. Dr. Wife
>>> pointed out that health policy is made by people who consume relatively
>>> little health care, who seem not to realize that we all need health
>>> care at some point.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>>
>> If I were as healthy for my age as Gary is, I would also opt to pay cash
>> for my care and then take the tax penalty. As it is, with my chronic
>> health issues I have little choice but to buy the very best policy that is
>> offered to me through the exchange as it is cheaper overall with premiums
>> and deductibles than paying cash out of pocket. I know without a doubt
>> that each year I will hit my maximum out of pocket level, usually within
>> the first 3-4 months of the year. The only benefit I have gained from the
>> affordable care act is I am no longer excluded from buying coverage due to
>> pre-existing conditions that previously kept me "uninsurable" in the
>> private insurance marketplace. BTW, my premium through the exchange went
>> up 24% this year from last. There is nothing affordable about the
>> affordable care act.
>
> when you become eligible for Medicare you will find that insurance
> companies can and will deny you coverage because of pre-existing
> conditions. You undergo an interview about who your doctors are, what
> prescriptions you take and very specific questions about illnesses and
> dates. It becomes difficult to shop the market for better insurance
> rates because of this. I understand the reasoning, I just don't like
> it.
> Janet US
>

Well that's just great. Hopefully that will change sometime in the next 20
years before I become eligible!

--
jinx the minx

"Janet B" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:05:55 -0500, jinx the minx
> > wrote:
>
>>Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 9:54:34 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, it sounds very frightening. What happens if someone is seriously
>>>> ill,
>>>> has no insurance and no money? Surely they are not just left to die???
>>>
>>> People who present with acute symptoms (say, diabetic shock) at an
>>> emergency room are treated for the immediate problem and sent on their
>>> way. Having no regular health care, they eventually wind up back
>>> in the ER with diabetic shock. Eventually it kills them. The cost
>>> of treating non-paying patients is baked in to the rates that hospitals
>>> charge paying patients, so we're paying for it anyway. I can't help
>>> but think it might be more economical to fund some sort of health
>>> insurance for the working poor.
>>>
>>>>> If you work for most any government agency, a position in the
>>>>> healthcare
>>>>> industry, an upper middle class job, chances are you have good
>>>>> coverage at
>>>>> little or no cost.
>>>>>
>>>>> People working in food service, hotels, retail, have some of the worst
>>>>> situations. They are making low wages and are offered little from the
>>>>> employers.
>>>>
>>>> How do they get health cover when they are paid so poorly?
>>>
>>> Many of them do not. It is cheaper for them to pay the penalties
>>> under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act than it is to
>>> purchase insurance, even with subsidies. Our own Gary is in that
>>> situation.
>>>
>>> My friend whose wife is a doctor was ranting this morning. Dr. Wife
>>> pointed out that health policy is made by people who consume relatively
>>> little health care, who seem not to realize that we all need health
>>> care at some point.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>>
>>If I were as healthy for my age as Gary is, I would also opt to pay cash
>>for my care and then take the tax penalty. As it is, with my chronic
>>health issues I have little choice but to buy the very best policy that is
>>offered to me through the exchange as it is cheaper overall with premiums
>>and deductibles than paying cash out of pocket. I know without a doubt
>>that each year I will hit my maximum out of pocket level, usually within
>>the first 3-4 months of the year. The only benefit I have gained from
>>the
>>affordable care act is I am no longer excluded from buying coverage due to
>>pre-existing conditions that previously kept me "uninsurable" in the
>>private insurance marketplace. BTW, my premium through the exchange went
>>up 24% this year from last. There is nothing affordable about the
>>affordable care act.
>
> when you become eligible for Medicare you will find that insurance
> companies can and will deny you coverage because of pre-existing
> conditions. You undergo an interview about who your doctors are, what
> prescriptions you take and very specific questions about illnesses and
> dates. It becomes difficult to shop the market for better insurance
> rates because of this. I understand the reasoning, I just don't like
> it.
> Janet US

That didn't happen to me when I went on Medicare.